US v. John Saadiq Hasan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cr-00294-MGL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999605537]. [14-4911]

Appeal: 14-4911

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4911

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHN SAADIQ HASAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:14-cr-00294-MGL-1)

Submitted:

June 16, 2015

Decided:

June 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4911

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
John Saadiq Hasan was convicted of threatening a government
official, 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) (2012), and was sentenced to
41 months in prison.

Hasan now appeals.

His attorney has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising two issues but stating that there are no meritorious
issues for appeal.

Hasan was advised of his right to file a pro

se supplemental brief, but has not filed such a brief.

We

affirm.
Counsel
denied

first

Hasan’s

acquittal.

Fed.

R.

that

Crim.

P.

the
29

district
motion

court

for

when

it

judgment

of

We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 29

motion de novo.
Cir. 2015).

contends

United States v. Reed, 780 F.3d 260, 269 (4th

“Applying that standard, . . . the verdict . . .

must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the
view most favorable to the government, to support it.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).

Id.

We have reviewed the trial

transcript and conclude that there was ample evidence to support
the guilty verdict.

Two witnesses testified that they heard

Hasan threaten to kill an employee at a social security office
unless Hasan’s supplemental security income benefit was fully
reinstated.

Further, Hasan made one of the threats when he was

outside the social security office, armed with a pitchfork.

2

Appeal: 14-4911

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

We next review Hasan’s sentence.
Guidelines

range

was

33-41

His properly calculated

months.

After

considering

the

Guidelines range, the arguments of counsel, Hasan’s allocution,
and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors as they
applied to Hasan, the district court sentenced him to 41 months
in prison.
We

review

reasonableness
standard.”
must

the

sentence

“under

a

for

deferential

and

substantive

abuse-of-discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

first

“ensure

that

the

district

significant procedural error.”
error,

procedural

we

then

Id. at 51.

consider

the

court

committed

We
no

If there is no such

sentence’s

substantive

reasonableness, taking into consideration “the totality of the
circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the
Guidelines range.”
properly

Id.

calculated

We may presume that a sentence within a

Guidelines

range

is

reasonable.

United

States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).

A defendant may rebut this presumption

only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against

the

§ 3553(a)

Id.

factors.”

After

reviewing

the

presentence investigation report and the sentencing transcript,
we conclude that the sentence is procedurally and substantively
reasonable

and

that

Hasan

did

not

rebut

the

presumption

reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence.
3

of

Appeal: 14-4911

Doc: 22

In

Filed: 06/19/2015

accordance

with

Pg: 4 of 4

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal.

We therefore affirm.

This court requires that counsel

inform Hasan, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Hasan

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on Hasan.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4